JUDGMENT : K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner, a government servant, was before this Court seeking medical reimbursement for the heart surgery underwent by her mother, a retired Headmistress. The total claim for reimbursement was a sum of Rs. 8,34,265/-. The Regional Deputy Director, before whom the application was submitted, returned the same finding that the mother, a retired Headmistress, is a pensioner and is drawing a pension of Rs. 22,180/-. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the amount of pension obtained by the mother was unable to sustain her and in fact she was wholly dependent on the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted that the entire money for the treatment was spent by the petitioner. 2. It is argued that the condition in the Circular that only those parents, who are wholly dependent on the government servant, are eligible for medical reimbursement is arbitrary. When the spouse of a government servant, who is a pensioner, is entitled to reimbursement, there is no reason why the parents are discriminated. 3. The learned Single Judge relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of M.P. and Others vs. M.P. Ojha and Another, (1998) 2 SCC 554 to direct the Regional Deputy Director to forward the application to the Government and the Government to consider the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of application in the light of M.P. Ojha's case (supra). 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the facts as revealed from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are clearly distinct. The Kerala Government Servants' Medical Attendance Rules, 1960 clearly stipulates that the parents of a government Servant are eligible for medical reimbursement, for the treatments they are subjected to, only if they are wholly dependent on the government servant. The mere fact that the spouse who is a pensioner, has been permitted medical treatment, even if she/he is a pensioner, would not mitigate the rigor of reimbursement in the case of parents, is the argument. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would take us to the clarificatory notifications issued by the Government, specifically indicating that the spouse alone would be entitled to medical reimbursement even if he or she is a pensioner. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would take us to the clarificatory notifications issued by the Government, specifically indicating that the spouse alone would be entitled to medical reimbursement even if he or she is a pensioner. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no logic insofar as excluding the parents, who are pensioners, from medical reimbursement especially when the children have a duty to look after the parents. 6. Going by the specific definition of family, we are of the opinion that there cannot be any medical reimbursement in the case of expenses incurred for the treatment of pensioners; through their children who are Government servants. M.P. Ojha was in the distinct circumstances of the father earning a meagre monthly pension of Rs. 414/- and also being eligible for medical reimbursement as a retired Government employee. We specifically notice the following extract from the judgment: “A flexible approach has to be adopted in interpreting and applying the Rules in a case like the present one. There is no dispute that the son took his father to Bombay for treatment for his serious ailment after getting due permission from the competent authority. It was submitted before us that the father being a retired Government servant could himself get sanction for treatment outside the State as a special case from the competent authority.” 7. We notice from the above extract that the decision in M.P. Ojha turns on the peculiar facts of a merge pension of Rs. 414/- and the pensioner also being entitled to reimbursement. In the present case the mother of the petitioner, who is a retired Headmistress, draws more than Rs. 22,000/- as pension and this cannot raise any presumption of dependence on the daughter, for sustenance or the treatment. Though the daughter has an obligation to look after the parents, it cannot be said that there is a resultant obligation on the Government, the employer, to reimburse the expenses incurred by the daughter for the treatment of the mother. The rule regarding reimbursement also calls for no debate and there is no challenge to the rule. The reimbursement of medical expense is an incidence of service regulated by the terms on which such reimbursement is granted. The rule regarding reimbursement also calls for no debate and there is no challenge to the rule. The reimbursement of medical expense is an incidence of service regulated by the terms on which such reimbursement is granted. It cannot be granted on grounds of equity or moral obligation and as we noticed, there is no challenge to the specific rule. 8. We hence set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow the appeal of the Government. The order of the Regional Deputy Director returning the claim of reimbursement is perfectly in order. There is no order as to costs.